If Justin Bieber or the Rolling Stones suddenly decided to stage an impromptu concert in a public place somewhere in America without a permit, would the authorities ignore it and shrug it off? Doubtful. Even buskers performing in the New York City subway system can't play without formal authorization from the city.

What about taking such a musical performance into a church? If Jennifer Lopez or Madonna just showed up in a place of worship, stripped down to their skivvies and started dancing around the altar, would that fly in any Western democracy? Not likely.

So why, then, are three young women in Russia getting so much sympathy from the mainstream media for doing precisely this inside a Russian Orthodox church?

Last week, three members of the activist group Pussy Riot were each sentenced to two years in prison for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. The group's members are part of a larger protest group called Voina, which has previously been involved in various acts of public nuisance, including group sex in a museum and shoplifting a whole chicken from a supermarket by stuffing into an activist's lady parts.

Voina and Pussy Riot are the Russian version of the Occupy Wall Street protest crowd. Their modus operandi is to use "art" in its various forms as a cover for acting like jerks and flaunting police warnings. They exploit the sentiment that artists worldwide generally should be given more behavioral license than the general public because they've historically pushed the boundaries of free expression.

One would hope that the public is able to tell the difference between Pussy Riot and, say, Voltaire -- who was thrown into a French prison for criticizing government and the Catholic Church in his extensive body of writing. Voltaire's career was writing, while Pussy Riot's entire career consists of hooliganism with a sprinkling of poor-quality "music" thrown in. Voltaire published several novels, plays, poems and essays, and in doing so, just happened to tick off the powers that be. Pussy Riot hasn't even recorded an album. Their credibility as artists is poorly established, unlike their activist background.

Boiled down, the Pussy Riot case is just another example of the social media generation's demand for instant gratification and attention in the absence of any sustained hard work. The protesters chose the shallowest form of subversion possible, their rationale apparently being that by doing a lewd can-can-girl number in a church, they can successfully overturn the government of a G8 country. That's some serious stoner logic.

The longer game of subversion would have required them to spend years working to get into a key position within the power structure, then influencing and subverting the system to change what they don't like. The effects of such an effort would have been more organic, credible and durable.

Or, at the very least, they could have practiced for several years to hone their "art" in the event that they were serious about being artists and not just serious about being hooligans. That's why Madonna can say all sorts of nonsense from a concert stage and constantly push the boundaries of free speech without getting arrested -- because she's actually earned the "artist" label and the leeway society affords it.

Somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin has been dragged into all this, presumably because this story is sexier with a Bond villain -- and because it's always preferable to hold someone else responsible for one's own bad behavior. Pussy Riot supporters claim that Putin has the long knives out for the band because they mentioned him in a song. The idea of Putin sitting around blubbering over being badmouthed by some girls in a YouTube video certainly undermines any evil image. The smearing of Putin as hypersensitive and vindictive would have been more credible had they intelligently addressed Putin's policies without breaking any laws, or associated themselves with a larger group of activists known for flaunting it relentlessly and treating it as a joke. Pussy Riot didn't keep its powder dry.

It's not as if Putin just invented the Russian law against hooliganism. The penalty of up to seven years in prison wasn't concocted especially for Pussy Riot. In fact, the same crime of religious hooliganism in Germany carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment -- a year more than the sentence Pussy Riot members received.

The Western media should save its tears for those who truly deserve them.

44% of Russians supporting this trial simply knows a history of their country.

That is assumption on your part, that those who support the prosecution, somehow know more or better about "the history of their country" than those whom do not support the prosecution.

If it be true that 72% view themselves as Russian Orthodox, that still leaves a sizable percentage of Orthodox whom for whatever reasons, didn't think this particular prosecution made good sense.

From all other sources, the criminal charges brought to trial, have been consistently characterized as being solely for the obnoxious activities that transpired in the cathedral.

Criminal trespass charges for those offenses, would have been more accurate, and more likely to have had wider support.

I got your point but that is your achilless heel vs this kind of agitators.

What of your own lack of armor? The shield of faith is what is to be used to quench fiery darts hurled by the wicked one. Not "the powers of the State".

What is more profane? These loud and obnoxious punks, or Putin, the one whom seemingly has no qualms against murder, and lesser acts of injustice perpetrated against political, and business/financial opponents, lighting candles in the Church?

Ask yourself, which is more offensive, and potentially destructive to true worship of our Creator?

Wedding the powers of State, to the Church, has proven to have been a mistake, over & over throughout history.

The Church is called to be holy, and set apart. What State, established by men, managed, governed, used and manipulated by men, has ever truly been that?

I just want to add a thought to cunning_fish's post # 156 where it's pointed out that:

AFAIK group claimed its responsibility for burning a truck but no one was prosecuted for this act because authorities had no evidence to charge any exact person. They were prosecuted for public pornography, throwing cats at McDonalds, their performance in courtroom and damaging another police car, thus they werent sentenced to any real jail time.

Have any of you ever lived in a neighborhood where a group of young people were wreaking havoc, but the neighbors could never prove it to the police? I have... many times. I'm betting most (if not all) of you have, too.

In one neighborhood, a group of teens was harassing everyone. Among other things, they even spread feces once all over our front door. The police could do nothing. It was our word against the teens'. Finally, these young people were caught and punished for something minor. I remember hearing them complain that they were being overly-punished. The way they were talking, an outsider who didn't know their history would've felt bad for them. But those of us who lived in the neighborhood were relieved.

Where my folks lived, a few young people have been terrorizing the neighborhood for years. They slit tires, crack windows with BB guns, throw used condoms all over lawns, steal things from private property, and verbally harass the neighbors. Everyone hates but fears them, but for a long time, the police could do nothing. Neither could other local authorities. These young people also deal drugs, and finally one was busted for drugs and put into prison. Things got quieter in the neighborhood. An outsider, who didn't know their history, might think, "This poor young man has been thrown in prison..." But, those of us who knew the history wish they all could be put away for awhile.

Think of Russia as "the neighborhood" and PR as "the neighborhood punks." The police finally got them on something. That's why most Russians are happy about it. We're the outsiders.

I think it stems from a hatred for Putin and the logic which states that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That logic is ok, but folks should realize that it works the other way-round. In my case, I see PR as representatives of the hedonistic secular left and the vile celebrity culture which is a much more subversive and dangerous force in the world than Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Why must you persist in exaggerating the evils of these disaffected Russians? Now you are linking them to crime in your own neighborhood!

Have you considered how the fallout due to the how & why these scene stealing "protestors" were eventually prosecuted, can be more damaging to the Church overall, then it is helpful?

Remember what the [son of] Man said; "The kingdom of heaven is within".

Why be in such a hurry to wed the powers of the State, and it's own effort to affect civil order, to the Church?

Consider what PR was singing about. Do they have a point? Is there some dis-connect between what the Church stands for as to morality, and how the Russian State exercises it's own powers? There is some un-evenness there, though it also stands to be mentioned that the present Russian State, is not the first to fall short of the high mark.

This other thread has what looks to be an accurate translation of their little protest song;

The Church has always endangered it's own holiness when too strongly allied with State.

If we try to force the one, before the other, then the girls are right. What we result with is truly crap, crap, crap. Decidedly, not so holy.

Or do you think we can force the issue by rule of law? Efforts along those lines have often enough fallen woefully short. The exceptions to this can be seen in clearest example, in the individual first, whom can then lead others by example.

Yet we are living in an age when even the best examples will scarcely be followed, and if followed, then by a great many, somewhat superficially. When that occurs, let us not be so quick to declare victory, when looking at present, and past times.

By which I mean, there is strong tendency among some Catholics to look back upon times when their own churches were blended quite directly & strongly with the powers of State, as some sort of past, rose colored Nirvana.

Clean first, the inside of the cup, then one can see enough to clean the outside. Other efforts tend to result in only smearing the dirt around.

166
posted on 08/23/2012 12:42:28 PM PDT
by BlueDragon
(going to change my name to "Nobody" then run for elective office)

And both Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church publicly called for leniency. According to the reports, Putin is popular in Russia. This anti-Putin group is so vile that they probably added to his popularity. Apparently, many Russians were sick of this PR group. Russia has been doing well economically under Putin’s leadership; this PR group could not have been any threat to him.

And the Orthodox Church publicly asked for mercy for the PR group.

But they’ve been a public nuisance to everyone else, apparently.

As stated earlier, for this particular crime under Russian law, the maximum sentence is seven years. That means other Russians may have been sentenced to seven years for this crime. These PR women were sentenced to just two... after all the havoc they’ve been wreaking with their group.

Please, try and get news and background information about this case from sources other than limited only to 'Life Site News' and the official Russian State informational/propaganda organs. There is more to all of this than meets the eye.

No one is exaggerating about their behavior.

They were tried only for what occurred at the church, yet wasn't it you(?) who tried to claim they were tried for these other things you wish to keep bringing up?

You compared them to tire slashers, drug dealers, and vile hoodlums in the U.S. who spread feces all over YOUR door, also. That sort of comparison would and should get you kicked off a jury.

Yes, I'm sure that many in Russia are sick of them, but less than half (from a statistic brought here by your buddy) actually supported the trial. Even with full-time efforts on the part of Putin's media outlets to paint these punk protestors as some sort of horrible evil..

I'm going to assume some of the majority of Russian citizens whom disagree with the prosecution, may have thought PR improperly charged, or over-charged for what they did do in that church, since less than half are fully on the side of the government. The case has been all over the news and media in Russia recently.

"...this PR group could not have been any threat to him

Excuse me? They were a component of the vocal opposition whom pointed out multiple instances of voter fraud during the last election. You know, the one where Putin was looking to be re-elected? And did. These protest punks jeopardized that, embarrassing both Putin and the Patriarch. At first Putin's government tried to laugh it off, but the Patriarch and a significant portion of the Orthodox were offended. That it ultimately what they were prosecuted for. Even then the government fell short of actually proving their case.

Ask Gary Kasparov. He was there, and among many others, and concurs Putin's operators jiggered the election. Pussy Riot just pushed too many buttons, calling foul in their foul way, for his using the Church as an election campaign backdrop (which he undoubtedly DID do).

And the Orthodox Church publicly asked for mercy for the PR group.

After the fact that Patriarch Kirill very publicly demanded they be tried in the first place. One prominent Orthodox commentator called for them to be burnt at the stake, as I have already provided quotes and links for, here previously on this thread.

Do you even read what I have to say before replying? I ask this, for the replies from you seem always the same old, same old. Just repetition of the enmity which you seem to hold for them...

Try looking into a conversation I had with a Catholic living in Poland, on this thread...he might not fully agree with me in all which I have otherwise said, but I'm certain he doesn't agree that the slant you keep pushing here, is the full and complete story, either.

IN FACT; Many Orthodox in Russia are not quite buying the State media line --- which is the line you are pushing here, whether you know it or not.

These PR women were sentenced to just two... after all the havoc theyve been wreaking with their group.

There you go AGAIN! Convicting them for all this other junk, which charges were not brought for, nor for which they were allowed any chance to provide for their own defense. What is this? The Inquisition?

The five months they spent waiting for trial was more than enough "time served", for their real crime or offense (trespass) but the government can't admit that, so the girls are stuck.

Possibly yourself, and more assuredly a number of Orthodox in Russia, view these girls' "punk prayer" as blasphemy, as a desecration. Yet the "prayer" was not an indictment against the Church itself, for the motives of the performance were political. It's not their fault, after all, that the KGB has long sought to control, and frequently has succeeded in controlling or manipulating the Church.

The difference being is that nowadays, rather than just keeping it repressed as in Soviet times, they now co-opt the Church and religious sentiments, when they can get away with it.

174
posted on 08/24/2012 2:15:35 AM PDT
by BlueDragon
(going to change my name to "Nobody" then run for elective office)

"In conclusion I would like to read the words of a Pussy Riot song, that, strange as they may be, proved prophetic. We foresaw that the Head of the KGB and the Chief Saint of the land place the protesters under guard and take them to prison. This was about us."

175
posted on 08/24/2012 2:41:16 AM PDT
by BlueDragon
(going to change my name to "Nobody" then run for elective office)

wasn't it you(?) who tried to claim they were tried for these other things you wish to keep bringing up?

No, I did NOT make such a claim. I brought up those other "activities" to give a more complete history of what this group has really been doing.

Please, try and get news and background information about this case from sources other than limited only to 'Life Site News' and the official Russian State informational/propaganda organs.

I did check a variety of sources before forming an opinion on this story. However, I do wonder about the sources YOU have been reading.

You compared them to tire slashers, drug dealers, and vile hoodlums in the U.S. who spread feces all over YOUR door, also. That sort of comparison would and should get you kicked off a jury.

We're not on a jury. This is an internet forum. We're not on jury duty; we're just talking. I'm allowed to say: "This group is nothing more than a group of hoodlums." Or, are you saying that this PR group can do and say anything they want as a form of protest, but no one should comment on their behavior? Why, how dare I comment on their behavior on an internet forum! What is this world coming to when a group of young women can't burst into a cathedral and cause a disturbance without being criticized for the many other disturbances they caused? /sarcasm

full-time efforts on the part of Putin's media outlets to paint these punk protestors as some sort of horrible evil..

The Russian media didn't have to do anything. The hoodlums themselves filmed their activities and posted videos and pictures of what they did on the internet.

...a component of the vocal opposition whom pointed out multiple instances of voter fraud during the last election... etc. .... Ask Gary Kasparov. He was there, and among many others, and concurs Putin's operators jiggered the election... etc.

On the one hand, you're very defensive of this group of hooligans who engage in sexual activities in public, flip police cars, set police vehicles on fire, and use profanity to disrupt the public, among other "activities." Because they were convicted for only ONE crime, you seem to think no one should criticize their other activities. You even excuse their other activities.

Yet, without any real evidence, you believe their stories about elections being rigged. Maybe the elections were rigged; maybe they weren't. Where is your proof that they were? Because Gary Kasparov says so?

Also, you insist that the PR group's former activities should have nothing to do with the discussion. But then you keep bringing up Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Putin has been doing some rather interesting things to keep himself in power. Maybe he is a bad guy. Maybe not entirely. The U.S. should never trust him completely. But that is a completely different topic of discussion. These "girls" weren't convicted of speaking out against Putin. They were convicted of Russia's version of a "hate crime."

What is this world coming to when a group of young women can't burst into a cathedral and cause a disturbance without being criticized for the many other disturbances they caused? /sarcasm

Hey Jack-ass. I never said they couldn't "be criticized" for other disturbances. Only that they were not formerly on trial for those other antics.

Quit lying about my own comments.

This obnoxious group has been running around mocking what they see as absurdities of cultural conventions in present-day Russia, using State institutions as a backdrop. That has been their schtick. I am aware enough of that.

Yet it is you and your ilk who persist in justifying long prison terms for their form of expressing "criticism", while they were tried mainly, only for offending the sensibilities of the religious, in a church of historical, religious, and now political significance. That last part is quite important. It IS central to the entire affair, but is hiding itself behind the umbrage of the reaction, frequently characterized by such as your own refusal to consider much beyond this groups history of being disruptive.

Now they get punished for all of that, rightly or wrongly, but with the Church left holding the bag as being the repressive bad guys.

Is that the image we should want? The Church as part of a power paradigm which cannot suffer it's critics gracefully? Is willing to imprison them, if they become inconvenient to the image they have been carefully working to portray?

Putin has been at least partially successful in portraying, & selling himself as some sort of Orthodox Catholic. Ask yourself --- do you think he has repented yet for all the killings of journalists his previous regime indulged itself with? Some criminals are punished in today's Russia. An entire other class appears to be the most deadliest to cross, and are above the law. Sound familiar?

Which is more profane, what those girls did, or Putin being given communion without repentance on his part, for evils perpetrated by his regime against critics? That is the taste left in the mouth of many in Russia and elsewhere concerning this.

It's like trying to go back to the time when the Tzars and the Church were united in one near monolithic entity. Do we really want a return to that? With this time "the Tzars" being the oligarchs who control everything (including apparently, the Church?). Many in Russia today, including a sizable number of Orthodox, and some number of the priesthood, do not want that.

On the one hand, you're very defensive of this group of hooligans who engage in sexual activities in public, flip police cars, set police vehicles on fire, and use profanity to disrupt the public, among other "activities." Because they were convicted for only ONE crime, you seem to think no one should criticize their other activities. You even excuse their other activities.

Such a subtle liar you are. I most certainly never "excused" the above, save for "the use of profanity", which are just words, after all. That, and my being not too overly upset with them mugging police cadets with hugs and kisses...which "mugging" had as it's basis, it's own intended agitation of the political realm in Russia today. That particular guerrilla theater was employed to frame the issue of questioning support for the current cultural paradigm, in which police powers are routinely employed as political weapon against investigators, questioners, and political challengers across the board, both "morally" legitimate or otherwise. Perhaps you've missed notice of such? Or is this a growing case of the denials, allowing your boy Putin to F' over anyone he wants to, as long as he gives the Catholic Church, in this instance the [Russian] Orthodox Church it's "due"?

Ask guys like Kasporov, what happens to some dissenters, or other competitors to the regime. It can get real ugly. Should the Church give rubber-stamp to such? All in the name of suppressing the indecency of Pussy Riot, of course...

The question remains. Should Putin be allowed to get away with cloaking himself with the righteousness which could more properly belong only to the Church?*

That is what Pussy Riot, in all their profanity, was focusing upon that day, when they entered into that church.

We can all be uncomfortable with the way the question was framed, (and who it was that framed it) yet still the question leads us to ever more questions.

Questions such as reexamining, once again; "what is the Church?", and what should be "the State"? How best should the two exist?

That particular hope sounds all fine and well.. but while these two entities, Putin, and the former "tobacco Metropolitan" are blowing kisses towards one another "in mutual respect", then what are the rest of us to make of it? Shall we call it "holy"? Or is it as much or more, something else instead?

I do think we have all seen this particular movie before. It has it's high points, times when the human spirit be can touched by the Divine. Yet in the basements and dungeons, are works and deeds, acts of men committed in the name of that which is Holy, but are more suited for hell itself.

In the end (of the movie?) does the cozy relationship not result in a profanity far more disgusting than even one of these girls masturbating (the one previously put in a mental hospital for being rebellious) in a grocery market, using a chicken leg?

For sake of comparison, let us now look at how the most fanatical among the Islamists, in their own wettest dreams, fantasize about a much similar Church/State relationship, as Kirill hopes for.

Why should not the Islamists think it their right? In their perspective, that "right" has been rightly endowed to them by the Creator. For they too make the claim "we have Abraham as our father", with in their instance, Mohammed of course [may-pork-be-upon-him] being the interpreter of God's heart & mind towards man.

I know the answers to why the Islamists shouldn't be allowed to rule...but it runs a bit deeper than "the hierarchical entities of Catholicism instead...should be the ones to rule".

If I have uncovered our philosophical differences here, I must tell you, it is not news to me. I have understood this from the very beginning of our conversation.

180
posted on 08/24/2012 8:31:31 PM PDT
by BlueDragon
(going to change my name to "Nobody" then run for elective office)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.